Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Originally posted by USFan, a fine American and fine thinker, I shortened this to the peanut butter and jelly of it, as the original thread has exceeded the allowed limit and so has been locked up in Al Gore's safe.
_____________________________

Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.

False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.

Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.

'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.

The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.

Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.

Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.

Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi

Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.

Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.

Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted and claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, and for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. (Condescending, hateful jihadist zeal, I might add. - CE) But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, and other conflicts with factual data.

Why do we need a "Redux"?
The original is Still running at the top of the section with the full 1-10?
Shall we all repeat ourselves? 100+ pages worth?

Click to expand...

The original is supposed to be closed due to length. JMo appears to have forgotten to lock it.

As to why CE would want to restart the thread, I assume it's because he needs to continue to further over compensate for... whatever he's dealing with by adding (or pretending to add) more people to his ignore list. He likes to make a big show of "adding" anyone who disagrees with him.

Originally posted by USFan, a fine American and fine thinker, I shortened this to the peanut butter and jelly of it, as the original thread has exceeded the allowed limit and so has been locked up in Al Gore's safe....

Click to expand...

This stinking pile of .... AGAIN?

Humans and dogs have 84% of their DNA in common
Humans and cats have 90% of their DNA in common
Humans and Chickens have 60% of their DNA in common
Humans and Fruit Flies have 60% of their DNA in common.

The arguments in the OP are so stupid they do not need an intelligent response.

Click to expand...

Which response you are clearly incapable of presenting, otherwise you would have.

See Item #5: Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.

Which response you are clearly incapable of presenting, otherwise you would have.

See Item #5: Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.

Click to expand...

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

That isn’t taught in relation to evolution any more than it is in any other field (including those directly opposed or contradicting evolution). As with any other professional field though, the evidenced conclusions of the experts in the field are given appropriate credence.

You seem to have shifted from the “commonly taught in schools” angle. The trash spouted on forums like this don’t make the slightest different to the validity (or lack thereof) of the topics being discussed.

There is ample real evidence for Evolution there are things science will need to find answers to of course but the theory itself is backed up by the fossil record and more vital DNA evidence and for human evolution specific evidence from human and our ancestors cultural advancement in ancient times. And how they expanded and interacted is not hard to understand with sound evidence and common sense. The issue is really is there another competitive theory in science that can be as good as and the same as the current ToE and that is - no. Poking at its weak spots doesn't mean the theory is wrong its just we don't understand those areas well enough with our current levels of science it doesn't mean they never will.

And an argument from authority is only a problem if said authority figures your using are not respectable experts in their fields of study one should trust a respected Ph.D. in say genetics if they did proper research and its been tested and challenged and was upheld in the DNA ancestry like of modern humans, if the person has the same degree in Engineering doing the same statement has no credibility to me since its out of field.

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

Again, absent evolution (and God) how does this happen?

Surely there is a reasonable explanation.

Click to expand...

You mean an explanation that all living things have acid in them? Probably the same reason stars have commonalities? The universe is fond of commonality? Seems reasonable to me.

Physicists say, give us one miracle(the big bang) and we will take it from there, and explain the rest. Biologists say, grant us one miracle(the arise of a self replicating molecule) and we will explain the rest. Not only is it a self replicating molecule, but in it lies the potentiality of not only a single cell self replicating organism, but the potentiality of such biological diversity, ending up in a self aware primate called homo sapiens, that could ask the question you asked. Well, it was after all a miracle that set this chain of events off. That was one helluva miracle, that biologist believe happened by nothing but blind chance. Amazing. No, astronomically astounding. One might say it seems almost absurd to think this was blind chance. But perhaps as the atom is said to be composed of energy and information, the rise of that first self replicating molecule arose because of energy and information. Not blind chance. And that information is essential to get from a self replicating molecule to a self aware primate with the ability to figure some of the mechanics out, but not quite all of it. So, the sharing of dna similarity with a pumpkin is because of information? Sounds reasonable.

There is ample real evidence for Evolution there are things science will need to find answers to of course but the theory itself is backed up by the fossil record ...

Click to expand...

No, no, and no. You don't seem to understand that GRAVITY does not have thousands of books and papers refuting it.
Darwinian evolution DOES, despite the fact that you Darwinists are always comparing "the theory of gravity" to "the theory of evolution." Silly comparison, but Darwinists never hesitate to make it.

The issue is really is there another competitive theory in science that can be as good as and the same as the current ToE and that is - no.

Click to expand...

You're not very good at this science. NO "competitive theory" is needed to abandon a weak hypothesis when it fails.
WHERE is it written that "science MUST have a theory for everything!" Please cite that source here.

And an argument from authority is only a problem if said authority figures your using are not respectable experts in their fields of study one should trust a respected Ph.D. in say genetics ...

Click to expand...

You neither understand science, nor the fallacies of argumentation.
What the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority MEANS is that EVEN "respectable experts in their fields of study" can be wrong, and simply citing them as true believers does NOT, repeat NOT mean they are right.

"Respected experts in their fields of study" have been wrong many, many times.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895

How many more such erroneous proclamations would you like?

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft

You mean an explanation that all living things have acid in them? Probably the same reason stars have commonalities? The universe is fond of commonality? Seems reasonable to me.

Physicists say, give us one miracle(the big bang) and we will take it from there, and explain the rest. Biologists say, grant us one miracle(the arise of a self replicating molecule) and we will explain the rest. Not only is it a self replicating molecule, but in it lies the potentiality of not only a single cell self replicating organism, but the potentiality of such biological diversity, ending up in a self aware primate called homo sapiens, that could ask the question you asked. Well, it was after all a miracle that set this chain of events off. That was one helluva miracle, that biologist believe happened by nothing but blind chance. Amazing. No, astronomically astounding. One might say it seems almost absurd to think this was blind chance. But perhaps as the atom is said to be composed of energy and information, the rise of that first self replicating molecule arose because of energy and information. Not blind chance. And that information is essential to get from a self replicating molecule to a self aware primate with the ability to figure some of the mechanics out, but not quite all of it. So, the sharing of dna similarity with a pumpkin is because of information? Sounds reasonable.

Click to expand...

As impressed as I'm sure you are with your ...statements...the truth is you've said nothing. You're requiring of evolution that we know everything back through all of time while you get to say, well, whatever it is you think you're saying with absolutely no evidence to support.

OK, Acid.

If a drop of acid over there somehow morphs over 2 billion years into a pumpkin, a fish, a banana tree, and a person, explain the causality without evolution.

No, no, and no. You don't seem to understand that GRAVITY does not have thousands of books and papers refuting it.
Darwinian evolution DOES, despite the fact that you Darwinists are always comparing "the theory of gravity" to "the theory of evolution." Silly comparison, but Darwinists never hesitate to make it.

You're not very good at this science. NO "competitive theory" is needed to abandon a weak hypothesis when it fails.
WHERE is it written that "science MUST have a theory for everything!" Please cite that source here.

You neither understand science, nor the fallacies of argumentation.
What the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority MEANS is that EVEN "respectable experts in their fields of study" can be wrong, and simply citing them as true believers does NOT, repeat NOT mean they are right.

"Respected experts in their fields of study" have been wrong many, many times.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895

How many more such erroneous proclamations would you like?

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft

Humans and dogs have 84% of their DNA in common
Humans and cats have 90% of their DNA in common
Humans and Chickens have 60% of their DNA in common
Humans and Fruit Flies have 60% of their DNA in common.

Absent evolution (and God) explain how this can happen.

Or just stop.

Click to expand...

And this is supposed to say we evolved from them? Really? Can you provided evidence
from the fossil record that shows this to be true? Can you produce evidence the gradual
transitioning of hominids changing into their species? This should be easier than chickens
or fruit flies. Of course you can't because there is no such scientific evidence. Yet you'll
believe we did. Sharing DNA doesn't mean we are related.

Is there a reason other than science that prevents you from accepting the fact that evidence
for evolution is very weak and must be manipulated in order to appear to be factual?

Originally posted by USFan, a fine American and fine thinker, I shortened this to the peanut butter and jelly of it, as the original thread has exceeded the allowed limit and so has been locked up in Al Gore's safe.
_____________________________

Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.

False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.

Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.

'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.

The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.

Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.

Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.

Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi

Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.

Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.

Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted and claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, and for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. (Condescending, hateful jihadist zeal, I might add. - CE) But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, and other conflicts with factual data.

Click to expand...

The "theory" of evolution is no theory. It has been proven in so many ways that only <Mod Edit-Rule 2> would deny it.

We're trying to keep it scientific, it is creationists like yourself that aren't.

I don't understand why you deny being creationist when your posts are almost copy book of the 'just asking questions' style adopted by creationists. At the end of the day, you can naysay, deny what constitutes evidence and raise the bar to an impossible standard (all creationist MO) but, if you were serious, you'd be getting yourself a science degree and publishing your cold hard evidence that ToE is false. You won't, because you can't.

1. How is it that Ernest Haeckel's infamous "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud persisted until the year 2000?
Be specific, if you can. Why was it a fraud, universally believed by that "scientific community" you cite so much?

2. What were the problems with the fraudulent Miller-Urey experiment, and why did it persist for decades despite being
a fraud?

There are many, many other frauds related to your beloved Darwinism besides these, but they'll do for starters.
Show your stuff, please. And be scientific. Don't just call people names if they choose not to march in lockstep with you.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

Click to expand...

Genuine Creationist nonsense and Duane Gish? Please, that is just too funny!

If you were REALLY interested the quotes can be debunked quite easily, I debunked 2 and 3 myself in a matter of seconds. The internet is not a friend of politicised religion.

1. How is it that Ernest Haeckel's infamous "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud persisted until the year 2000?
Be specific, if you can. Why was it a fraud, universally believed by that "scientific community" you cite so much?

2. What were the problems with the fraudulent Miller-Urey experiment, and why did it persist for decades despite being
a fraud?

There are many, many other frauds related to your beloved Darwinism besides these, but they'll do for starters.
Show your stuff, please. And be scientific. Don't just call people names if they choose not to march in lockstep with you.

Click to expand...

More Creationist copy book plays. Don't you guys have any new research to present? Oh, I forgot, Creationists consider quote mining, misrepresenting and naysaying to be research don't they. That's why their nonsense never gets submitted to real scientific journals for publication.

No, no, and no. You don't seem to understand that GRAVITY does not have thousands of books and papers refuting it.
Darwinian evolution DOES, despite the fact that you Darwinists are always comparing "the theory of gravity" to "the theory of evolution." Silly comparison, but Darwinists never hesitate to make it.

You're not very good at this science. NO "competitive theory" is needed to abandon a weak hypothesis when it fails.
WHERE is it written that "science MUST have a theory for everything!" Please cite that source here.

You neither understand science, nor the fallacies of argumentation.
What the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority MEANS is that EVEN "respectable experts in their fields of study" can be wrong, and simply citing them as true believers does NOT, repeat NOT mean they are right.

"Respected experts in their fields of study" have been wrong many, many times.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895

How many more such erroneous proclamations would you like?

"640K of memory should be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft

Click to expand...

The QUANTITY of theist science denial does not negate the genuine science supporting Evolution.

Furthermore NONE of the theist science denial has any CREDIBILITY since it is NOT based upon the actual scientific method.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

Click to expand...

Ironic that the OP is committing the FALLACY of "appealing to authority" because he has no actual "science" to support his OP.

More Creationist copy book plays. Don't you guys have any new research to present? Oh, I forgot, Creationists consider quote mining, misrepresenting and naysaying to be research don't they. That's why their nonsense never gets submitted to real scientific journals for publication.

For example, researchers found students who were least proficient often overestimated their own abilities.

“The skills they lacked were the same skills required to recognize their incompetence,” Fry said. “The incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.”

In a new clip that Pindex put together, Fry also explains how Salience Bias and the power of repetition help shape views more than facts.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,” Fry says in the clip. “It is the illusion of knowledge.”

Click to expand...

In essence the DK effect is why creationists swallow the disinformation without question because they lack the necessary critical thinking skills necessary to know the difference between what is factual and what they have been told to believe. Ironically enough they accuse others of their own shortcoming.